B.Pramod vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd
2024 Latest Caselaw 13412 Ker

Kerala High Court

B.Pramod vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd on 24 May, 2024

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
            FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
                             WP(C) NO. 3543 OF 2018
PETITIONER:

              B.PRAMOD
              AGED 47 YEARS
              SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PINNAKKINADU,
              KALAKETTY P.O., KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT MADAPPALLIL HOUSE,
              PANAMATTAM P.O., KOORALI, KOTTAYAM -686522.

              BY ADV SRI.T.T.RAKESH


RESPONDENTS:

     1        KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
              BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
     2        THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM
              KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN,
              PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
     3        THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
              ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALA, PINNAKKANADU,
              KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

              BY ADV.
              SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
              LIMITED



     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.3543 of 2018

                                        2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2024

The petitioner, while working as an overseer

at the electrical section Ponkunnam was visited

with an enquiry proceedings and a report of

enquiry dated 27.01.2014 was submitted.

Simultaneously, crime No.404/2012 was registered

against the petitioner for offences under Section

279 of the Indian Penal Code, 185 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act.

However, on trial, the petitioner was acquitted as

per Ext.P2 judgment dated 06.05.2015 of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally.

Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3

proceedings of the Executive Engineer dated

17.10.2016, in which the petitioner was issued with

a warning and the departmental enquiry was

closed. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, to the extent of

imposing a warning against the petitioner, the

petitioner preferred Ext.P4 review petition, which

was declined by order dated 25.02.2017 (Ext.P5)

on the ground that no power of review is vested

with the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P5,

petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal, in which the 2 nd

respondent issued a show cause notice dated

08.12.2017, wherein the petitioner was asked to

show cause as to why the penalty of barring of one

increment for six months without cumulative effect

shall not be imposed against him. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner approached this Court in the

present writ petition.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf

of the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board.

It is admitted that the petitioner has been

acquitted from the criminal proceedings. However,

the respondents have raised a point that, since the

3rd respondent initiated disciplinary action, he had

forwarded the appeal to the immediate subordinate

authority. Still further, it is contended that mere

acquittal in the criminal proceedings on the same

set of charge per se does not entitle the

delinquent to claim immunity from the disciplinary

proceedings.

3. I have heard Sri. T.T. Rakesh, learned

Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None

appeared for the respondents.

4. It is beyond doubt that the disciplinary

proceedings taken against the petitioner

culminated in a report of enquiry on 27.01.2014.

The report of enquiry also reveals that the initiation

of departmental enquiry as well as the criminal

case was simultaneous. On analyzing the materials

and evidence on record under Ext.P1 enquiry, all

said charges against the petitioner stood proved,

however, the second charge was only proved to a

limited extent. Still further, the enquiry officer was

specific in his report that further steps against the

delinquent in the departmental enquiry would be

taken only based on the final verdict pending on

the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II. The

order of acquittal by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally in C.C.No.380/2012 was

passed on 06.05.2015. It is thereafter only the

petitioner was visited with Ext.P3 order dated

17.10.2016, wherein only a warning was issued

against the petitioner. When Ext.P1 is read along

with Ext.P3, this Court comes to a conclusion that

the acquittal of the petitioner before the Judicial

First Class Magistrate-II, had certainly weighed in

the minds of the disciplinary authority in imposing

the warning against the petitioner. It is the

petitioner's specific case that, even he was not

entitled to have been visited with such a warning,

especially when he was honorably acquitted in the

departmental proceedings.

5. I find substantial force in the submissions

of Sri. T.T. Rakesh, learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner. The Rule that is referred to under

Ext.P7 show cause notice is Rule 35 of the Kerala

State Electricity Board Employees (Classification,

Control & Appeal) Regulations 1969, which reads as

follows;

"Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Board may, on their own motion or otherwise after calling for the records of the case, review any order passed by the subordinate authority which is made or is appealable under these regulations or the rules repealed by regulation 40".

Therefore, it is prima facie evident that the 2nd

respondent does not have the jurisdiction to revise

the order, so passed. Even if we have to assume

that the appellate authority has got inherent

powers under the Rules to enhance the penalty on

an appeal by a delinquent employee, on the facts

of this case, this Court is not persuaded to hold

that such power to be exercised, especially when,

the report of enquiry also specifically provides that

the final decision in the departmental enquiry

would be taken after the culmination of the trial in

the criminal case. Once the criminal case has

entered into an acquittal in favour of the petitioner,

the proceedings in the departmental enquiry will

have to be taken to a logical conclusion. In other

words, certainly the petitioner could be deemed to

be aggrieved in the disciplinary authority

proceeding to issue a warning against him and

therefore, precisely the reason why he has filed the

appeal.

Considering the entire facts and

circumstances, I am of the considered view that

the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly

Ext.P7 order is quashed. The writ petition is

allowed. There will be direction to the competent

among the respondents to consider Ext.P6 appeal

in accordance with law and to take a decision

within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

EASWARAN S.

JUDGE NB/24-5

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3543/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY DATED 27.01.2014 INTO THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 380/12 IN THE COURT OF JFMC II DATED 06.05.2015. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PONKUNNAM ELECTRICAL DIVISION DATED 17.10.2016.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.12.2016.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER REJECTING EXHIBIT P4 DATED 25.02.2017. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER DATED 27.03.2017.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08.12.2017.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE NO.GB1-42/PKM/2012-13/102 DATED 11-7-2012.

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE